West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-08-26
DISCUSSION OF PROHIBITION.

son that we have read of some very
good people before to day that have
been classified in that way, and il
reeurs to us that about all the re-
formers of whom we ever have read,
in politics, science, religion or any
thing else, that finally made the
world wiser and better, were called
fanatics by the "level,headed" con-
temporary apOlogists Of hOary head
ed wrong and iniquity. His patron
saint Tom Jefferson, was in his day,
a fanatic for democracy; and we
quote him not because we applaud
or approve what was fanatical in his
views on that and several other sub
jects; but simply because his is a
case in point upon which we can fall
back with the certainty that our
friend can see the want of apostle
ness in his sarcasm.
The people who are advocating
prohibition have as high apprecia.
tion of personal liberty and as much
interest in it as they can have who
are opposing it, and there is no one
of them but would insist to the last
extremity that the rights of minori-
ties are to be respected. Advocates
of reform have not generally such
large maioritieS on their side, that
they can afford to belittle the rights
of minoritieS. Our friend may rest
contented that when prohibition be-
comes the law, the rights Of his
friends the distillers and saloon keep
ers will be amply protected, so long
rs they do not construe their rights
to be the rights to do something to
the detriment Of their neighbors or
the body polite. There is the whole
gist of the personal liberty argument
as opposed to the idea of the prOhibi-
tion and sale of whiskey as fully and
and as intelligibly expressed in one
short sentence as though it occupied
a column. 1t is all there.
The personal liberty Of the indi-
vidual is restricted every day by law,
and the only reason for it is, that by
the agreement of the majority of the
people, it is right that it should be
so; and the minority will have per-
force, to trust to the good sense and
the instincts and conscience Of the
majority to see that it is not impos
ed upon, or be prepared, as has been
done, and will again, to assert itself
by force o. arms. 1t has always
been so, and can't, as society is CON
structed, be otherwise. Men are
confined in the penitentiary every
day, and restrained from the doing
ola variety of things they would like
to do, and compelled to do q variety
Of things they would rather not do,
simply because the good Of society
requires it, and their saying that the
doing or the not doing, is mere per-
sonal habit of theirs, concerning
none but themselves, don't count a
baubee 1t is not for them to say.
JEFF Davis argued that it was a
personal right he had in reservation
to nullify the laws of the United
States whenever they disagreed with
the Constitution as he read it; there
was 4 difference Of opinion, and Mr..
Davis and his friends resorted to the
ultima ratio, rs our contemporary
doubtless well remembers. Nor has
the result escaped his observation.
JEFF 5 opinion remains intact, but the
solid and irrevocable fact to the con-
trary, is established, and the solemn
old world rolls on. SO will it be as
to the bugabOOs our friend conjures
up.
We fear our friend writes without
Mr.. Davis never dreamed of
such thing. Some day, when we have
space, we viii give the Herdld a clear
cut view of what was popularity called
the doctrine of Nullitication:-w which, by
the way, Mr.. Davis did not believe in
Ed. DEM.
As to the real business in hand
There is no bubble about it, but it
is, as a proposition, straight and
plain as a pixies staff. The ProhObi.
tionists in the exercise of their per
sOnal liberty to do what they think
is best for themselves and the public
generally, have determined, if they
can, to break up the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors for intoxicating pur-
poses: if they succeed in this, or as
far as they do succeed in it, they stop
drunkenness,-ifthat be an invasion
of personal liberty, so it will have to
be. There is no juking about
that.
The DEMOCRAT wishes q better un-
derstanding of what the Herald
means when it says: that the drink
habit is an indulgence which inter
feres with the. rights of others than
the person indulging." In trying to
beconciSe, the Herald does not prob
ably always make itself as plain as
it might, but the idea intended to be
conveyed is that the evil effects of the
drink habit are not confined to the
person induleing but extend beyond
him. To make ourselves entirely
plain, we submit the following in
dictment, which partly we find in